If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
"Gene Kearns" wrote in message ... On 13 Jan 2005 19:34:18 GMT, ode (nuke) wrote: Geez y'all, with all the arguing, somebody could have found an approved part from a certificated aircraft, gotten the conformity data, submitted a 337 with details, drawings and instructions for continued airworthiness and most likely have gotten a fuel cutoff valve that doesn't leak. Very true... but several posters seem to continue to insist that not only are 337s, approvals, log book entries, drawings and the FARs unnecessary and dispensable (at their sole discretion), but a real hazard to safe flight..... Well, nobody has said that, and you act more and more like a rather grim little troll. Most people are puzzled about all the paperwork and excess energy unnecessarily expended to replace a part on an aging aircraft, so they seek out an A&P/AI who is not working on his analworthiness certificate. (Such as yourself.) The FSDO in this neck of the woods does not grant field approvals and its agents have said so time and time again. That's a fact, so why don't you troll and spam where you'll be more appreciated. By the way, some friends just replaced the bronze jackscrews on their trim systems and didn't go through all the anal hoops the lock-sphinctered hairsplitting like you seem to require out of airplane life. We reverse engineered them because there was no other source. Much to your chagrin and pucker-pain, they work beautifully. And the IA's who installed them just loved them. In addition I'm personally aware of a mag drive gear from Fresno Airparts which just had the FAA in a nervous frenzy---because Fresno apparently didn't go through the hoops to assure the proper Rockwell hardness (It's soft) and furthermore didn't get it approved and etched 'FAA-PMA' with permission. And I understand there are thousands of them out there in service. Now I hate to tell you--- for fear you may swoon and collapse with a conniption yourself and tear out a sphincter --- but this #36066 drive gear (price for the legal one: about $500 at ACS) has almost 800 hours on it -- and not one torn anus. See: http://www.faa.gov/certification/air.../ACE-98-21.htm for details on the discomfort at FAA. Now there's a real issue for you, my analworthy friend. That and somebody taking a Cub data plate and putting it on a homebuilt Cub-- then selling it as if it were the genuine item. Go and find out how many catastrophic engine failures occurred because of those gears out there turning thousands and thousands of mags and report back with the scandalous results. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
"Gene Kearns" wrote in message ... On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 19:11:18 -0500, " jls" wrote: The FSDO in this neck of the woods does not grant field approvals and its agents have said so time and time again. That's a fact, so why don't you troll and spam where you'll be more appreciated. "Your neck of the woods" falls under the local jurisdiction of the Charlotte, NC FSDO (SO-FSDO-33). Any statement that implies that the ASIs and PMIs at that FSDO won't do field approvals is absolutely and totally false... as I'm sure you well know. The last time I went to FAA/pilot meeting in Hendersonville, the agent there answered a direct question about field approvals posed by a well-known pilot/builder/restorer. I could have sworn he said 'NO.' Maybe the policy has changed; I have heard enough bickering about it from the mechanics in this area. So don't tell me what I know. I hope you're not as incompetent at mechanicking as you are at mental telepathy. I never could understand how a government agency could operate to its maximum reasonable extent if it were practicing cya for fear of lawsuits. Besides that, most governmental agencies enjoy sovereign immunity from actions at law, but I can tell you having sat there and listened that the agent made reference to the litigious society we live in when he said NO. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
"Gene Kearns" wrote in message The policy has not changed.... You made a flat statement [i. e., that the Charlotte FSDO does not grant field approvals] that was demonstrably false... OK, fella, here is your chance to shine. In the last 2 years how many field approvals have they granted and how many have they refused? That should be easy enough for you to find out since you make it to appear you are intimate with them. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
That's not what he asked you, idiotbird. What he asked was the ratio of
approved/declined field approvals and the numbers for each. You seem to be so well connected with the Charlotte FSDO that this information ought to be trivial to obtain. Unless, of course, you are blowing smoke... Jim "Gene Kearns" wrote in message ... On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:29:07 -0500, " jls" wrote: "Gene Kearns" wrote in message The policy has not changed.... You made a flat statement [i. e., that the Charlotte FSDO does not grant field approvals] |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Looks like the start of an internet ****ing match between one fellow
who is always correct but can't prove it, and another fellow who is just relaying info as it was related to him. Who was that masked man? Prove what you're saying! I will if you tell me who that masked man is. Hey Gene, regardless of what you may think, statements like that are strewn all the time by these government hacks, because that's what the minute by minute policy is. And why don't you just say that you have a bigger dick than anyone else here and we'll all start accepting your word as the gospel according to St. Kearns! A legend in his own mind! On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:51:31 -0500, Gene Kearns wrote: On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:29:07 -0500, " jls" wrote: "Gene Kearns" wrote in message The policy has not changed.... You made a flat statement [i. e., that the Charlotte FSDO does not grant field approvals] that was demonstrably false... OK, fella, here is your chance to shine. In the last 2 years how many field approvals have they granted and how many have they refused? Not a problem... answer the question and I'll call him and get your figures... "Just who *was* this mystery agent? Post his name and I'll call him, myself, and verify what he said." That should be easy enough for you to find out since you make it to appear you are intimate with them. Not "intimate," but I do attend nearly all of the AMT/IA seminars and meet many of the Charlotte people and have formed professional acquaintances with them.. I work close enough to the Greensboro FSDO to hit it with a rock.... and answer to and am surveilled by at least three different PMIs from that office..... so, yes, I *do* know the area and I *do* know what they will or won't do. Nice try, but you aren't going to blow smoke at me over the local FSDOs. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
"Gene Kearns" wrote in message ... jls makes an unsupported and untrue statement and I ask for his... Gene, why do you think I put jls into the twit bucket? Don't waste your time. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
" jls" wrote: analworthiness lock-sphinctered pucker-pain, tear out a sphincter torn anus. analworthy You think about this kind of stuff a lot, don't you? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Fuel Selector Valve | Tom Cummings | Owning | 1 | March 7th 04 02:44 PM |
Airplane Parts on Ebay Vac Reg Valves, Fuel Floats, O-200 Spider, Fuel Injection Valve | Bill Berle | Home Built | 0 | January 26th 04 07:48 AM |
Airplane Parts on Ebay Vac Reg Valves, Fuel Floats, O-200 Spider, Fuel Injection Valve | Bill Berle | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | January 26th 04 07:48 AM |
Airplane Parts on Ebay Vac Reg Valves, Fuel Floats, O-200 Spider, Fuel Injection Valve | Bill Berle | Owning | 0 | January 26th 04 07:48 AM |
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons | Curtl33 | General Aviation | 7 | January 9th 04 11:35 PM |